5 types of gun laws the Founding Fathers loved

None of the so-called laws being referenced in the article existed at the federal level. They all existed at the local level exclusively, and only in certain states.

The founding fathers, in ratifying the united states constitution, and the bill of rights contained within, did not attempt to codify such standards into law at the local level, indicating a lack of support for such standards. They choose to leave the matter of individual rights and their interpretation up to the individual states to sort out themselves, while leaving the federal government devoid of authority to implement firearm-related restrictions that would apply throughout the nation. If they did indeed support these firearm-related restrictions as is being claimed by the author, they would have been implemented at the federal level, rather than left to the discretion of the states.

 

The lack of gun control at the federal level and the historical context show that the Second Amendment was never originally intended to settle any dispute about gun control. There was no reason for it to. No one was arguing about whether the federal government could regulate guns in order to protect public safety and people seemed to accept that individual states could exercise substantial authority over privately owned guns. The debate surrounding the Second Amendment was entirely focused on the militia. The amendment represented a commitment on the part of the federal government to keeping the militia in good working order. So there isn't really much historical precedent for declaring various modern gun control laws to be unconstitutional- at least not prior to the 19th Century.

 

Legal scholars and historians disagree with the assessment being presented on the part of yourself. The second amendment has nothing to do with the militia, as such is already regulated by other sections of the united state constitution.

 

Fail. The Second Amendment has everything to do with the militia. Try reading the first clause of the amendment. The article I quoted from was written by a well-respected historian who disagrees with your assessment.

 

Explain how the Second Amendment protects the arms of the militia when under Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution the Congress has complete power over who is in the militia and what arms they are allowed? Are the arms of the militia protected by the Second Amendment if Congress limits membership in the militia to 1 person from each state?

 

Article one section eight of the united states constitution already authorizes federal control and authority over the militia in all regards, meaning the second amendment would be redundant and serve no purpose if it applied exclusively to the militia as is being claimed by yourself.

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8



Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

The historian being referred to by yourself is factually incorrect in their assertion.

 

Do you understand what an amendment is? Would limiting the militia to one person per state be keeping the militia in good working order? Would that be in line with the Second Amendment? I don't think so.

 

Article 1 doesn't provide any assurance that Congress won't abuse its power over the militia. Thus, the need for the Second Amendment.

 

Abuse? It had total power. There's nothing the Second could do to stop the Congress from simply saying that the militia has no members at all.

 

It's in line with Article 1, Section 8, and "well-regulated" is whatever Congress decides. Period. End of story.

 

Senators are elected by state legislatures. It says so in Article 1. Period. End of story.

 

You've yet to show how the Second can protect the arms of the militia if the Congress has full control over the arms of the militia, nor have you shown how the Second gives the federal government any power over the arms of the People, as that wasn't mentioned in the Constitution.

17th Amendment: {"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

2nd Amendment: the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Nope, both seem pretty clear.

 

Not necessary. An amendment can override the original text so it doesn't matter if you've found some kind of contradiction.

Straw man.

 

The Bill of Rights didn't override any enumerated powers in the Constitution. That wasn't the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

As as as the BoR was ratified, Congress immediately restricted the arms of the militia.

You've also failed to show that the Second Amendment protects the arms and or organization of the militia.

 

nonsense. the second amendment was intended to recognize a right the FOUNDERS believed existed from the dawn of man. How can you pretend that right requires membership in a government regulated entity to vest?

 

What about the judicial powers granted to the government in the main body of the Constitution and the portions of the Bill of Rights which place limits on such powers?

Not enough to constitute an infringement.

It's the only interpretation of the Second Amendment that makes sense. You've failed to show otherwise.

 

How long ago was the dawn of man? Did guns even exist at that time? How could there be a right to own something that did not even exist?

 

Even before firearms, the Right to defend oneself existed, this Right even predates the arrival of mankind and has always superseded all material concerns.

 

How could the Second Amendment protect the rights of a militia that did not exist?

 

that's irrelevant. You are either trying to be evasive or you really haven't a clue about constitutional theory.

how about telling us how the founders would demand a right they all BELIEVED existed before GOVERNMENT would require membership in a government supervised entity to vest? I will help you since its obvious you don't understand this area. The answer is-NO the well regulated militia line HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VESTING of the right RECOGNIZED in the second amendment

 

It’s the Schrödinger‘s cat gambit.... the anti’s keep looking at the same text of the second amendment, the same text that experts have looked at for over 200 years thinking it will all the sudden transform and share the secret meaning lots to Americans all these years despite detailed brief in Heller that explains the 2A as an individual right. Funny, many of them love to refer to Heller in regard to it allowing gun regulations (not true BTW) but ignore the well crafted examination of the 2A as protection of a individual right. Then too, ignore not only over two hundred years of every American’s common understanding of the 2A as protecting the right but want everyone to believe they have a secret knowledge everyone else dumber has missed. There’s a word for that condition.

 

The second amendment of the bill of rights does nothing to provide any assurance that congress will not abuse its power over the militia either. As it is written, the second amendment provides no safeguards of any sort, that would do anything to prevent the federal government from completely eliminating the militia from existence.

 

Since the State Militia is the ability to Raise able bodied Men & now Women, to be sworn in, to serve in a Public Service capacity, the individual Citizen needs to be prepared, ie, to be sworn in, be Armed aforetime, "The Right of "The People" to keep and bear "Arms shall not be infringed" so they can bear Arms and serve in a Militia if called upon to do so.

Since a Militia bears Arms under colour of Authority, the State Militia does not need a protection in order to keep and bear Arms as it is not a Right as is free speech, The Bill of Rights guarantees Citizens Rights, not Government Authorities, State Militias.

 

the gun control movement is based on lies and dishonesty. They know damn well that the second amendment is supposed to ban all federal infringements including crap like the odious 1934 NFA. But since most all are lefties, and the ends justify the means to them, they continue to lie